...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

From my point of view ("on the outside looking bored" ;-), this verse is the foundation of the Christian faith. If it is false, then there is no reason that Jesus needed to shed his blood for our salvation. However, even if I assume that (1)God exists and (2)there is an objective moral standard and (3)transgressing His law separates us from His grace, I still find no reason to believe that Heb. 9:22 is true.

So, my question is: Assuming that the above numbered statements are true, is there any evidence for the claim of Heb. 9:22, or is it just something that's to be taken on faith?

Even though I'm an atheist, I'll accept biblical OT claims in favor of the statement as well as philosophical arguments. I would just like to know how the author of Hebrews might have come to his conclusion.

I'll also understand if it's just something that Christians have to take on faith. We all have foundational beliefs that we just assume are true because they have no proof.

Thanks,
Eleazar

If you accept OT claims, then you've answered your own question.

"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." Leviticus 17:11

The atonement of sins does not come without the shedding of blood. It's a law set down by God himself. Any Jew back then would have known that.

Thanks, inside out.

I had thought that mainstream Christianity viewed passages like the one you mentioned as OT shadows. In other words, the animal's blood didn't atone for sin, but the sacrifice was symbolic of the *real* sacrifice to come. However, if this is not the case, how does one reconcile the grain offering of Leviticus 2 with the requirement of a "shedding of blood."

Also, the passage that you mentioned is giving a reason why one shouldn't eat blood. It isn't saying that *only* blood makes atonement for life, but only that you shouldn't eat it because it is used as a sacrifice. Are there other passages that back-up your claim, inside out?

Thanks,
Eleazar

In Leviticus 2, where is there the issue of foregiveness of sins? It is simply talking about an offering to God, as a portion of what God was owed as His share of the harvest.
The fact that the blood on the altar was all that was given for the atonement of sins, would limit that to blood.
Also, the empty tomb is a part of the 'foundation' of Christianity.

1Cor. 15:
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Thanks, inside out.

I had thought that mainstream Christianity viewed passages like the one you mentioned as OT shadows. In other words, the animal's blood didn't atone for sin, but the sacrifice was symbolic of the *real* sacrifice to come. However, if this is not the case, how does one reconcile the grain offering of Leviticus 2 with the requirement of a "shedding of blood."

Also, the passage that you mentioned is giving a reason why one shouldn't eat blood. It isn't saying that *only* blood makes atonement for life, but only that you shouldn't eat it because it is used as a sacrifice. Are there other passages that back-up your claim, inside out?

Thanks,
Eleazar

The key word in that passage is altar. Altars are where sacrifices were made. You're right, that entire section is about why not to eat blood, and this is one of the reasons why. At the time it was the only way. If there was another way, then Jesus died in vain. Jesus died because a perfect sacrifice was needed to atone for all our sins. But it is not the blood that is specific, it is the sacrifice itself that is needed.

If there were another way, then God would have mentioned it.

In Leviticus 2, where is there the issue of foregiveness of sins? It is simply talking about an offering to God, as a portion of what God was owed as His share of the harvest.
The fact that the blood on the altar was all that was given for the atonement of sins, would limit that to blood.
Also, the empty tomb is a part of the 'foundation' of Christianity.

1Cor. 15:
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

@slightlypuzzled: Thanks, slightlypuzzled. I re-read that Leviticus passage, and you are right. The correct way to look at the grain offering is more like a tithe than a sacrifice, right? About the empty tomb: I don't think it matters if everything the bible says about Jesus was true -- virgin birth through resurrection -- if there was any other way to atone for mankind's sins *besides* the shedding of blood, Jesus died in vain just like inside out said.


The key word in that passage is altar. Altars are where sacrifices were made. You're right, that entire section is about why not to eat blood, and this is one of the reasons why. At the time it was the only way. If there was another way, then Jesus died in vain. Jesus died because a perfect sacrifice was needed to atone for all our sins. @inside out: If what you say is correct, and altars were where sacrifices were made, then wouldn't Jesus *not* dying on an altar prevent him from meeting one of the criteria of being a sacrifice. Which brings me to one of my previous statements: The OT altar sacrifices do not atone for sins; they are merely symbols of the NT sacrifice. Is this previous sentence true or false?


But it is not the blood that is specific, it is the sacrifice itself that is needed. If the blood is not specific, what are the criteria for a (perfect) sacrifice? The author of Hebrews seems to think that the blood is vital.

Thank y'all so much for the feedback, especially the OT clarification. If y'all don't mind, I'd also like to hear if there are any good non-biblically based reasons for believing a blood sacrifice is important for the remission of sins.

Thanks again,
Eleazar

Good question Eleazer! Not enough people ask anything like this.

Were did sin start? With Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden of course. So why wouldn't God address an issue like this with the very first sin? He did. When most people read Genesis 3:21, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them," they think that all this implies is that God gave them clothes. However, it means something much, much more. To make "coats of skins," an animal or animals had to die to obtain pelts. The way I see it, God just made the first sacrifice (which included blood) to set the precedent. While the Bible doesn't explicitly say that this is so, we find confirmation in the very next chapter.

If you watch those History Channel documentaries, you will see pators, preists, and theologians (all in suits-and-ties, with stained-glass windows behind them, and bibles in their hands, of course) that say very emphatically, "we're not sure why Cain's sacrifice wasn't accepted." Alright, perhaps I do. You seem to know you way around the Bible Eleazar, so I'm going to jump to the story: Abel's sacrifice was "firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof." Cain's was, as you probably know, "fruit of the ground." Abel's sacrifice was accepted, Cain's was not. Skip ahead: were early believers still making blood sacrifices around Noah's day? We might assume that they probably weren't, except for Noah himself. Why would we think that he was? Because God told him, "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female..." And we know of course that Abraham would have been making blood sacrifices as well, because Isaac realized they didn't have the proper animal with them and said "where is the lamb for a burnt offering."

A few generations later, and Moses receives the things in Leviticus, etc.

Good question Eleazer! Not enough people ask anything like this.

Were did sin start? With Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden of course. So why wouldn't God address an issue like this with the very first sin? He did. When most people read Genesis 3:21, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them," they think that all this implies is that God gave them clothes. However, it means something much, much more. To make "coats of skins," an animal or animals had to die to obtain pelts. The way I see it, God just made the first sacrifice (which included blood) to set the precedent. While the Bible doesn't explicitly say that this is so, we find confirmation in the very next chapter.

Thank you so much. I really like your explaination, dunedanranger. So, the first sacrifice did indeed cover the shame and guilt of the first sin -- literally! Fantastic answer! But I have the follow-up question still dangling out there: Are we to view the OT sacrifices (including the new one that you've opened my eyes to) as real atonements for sin or symbols of Christ's atonement? I swear, if this isn't answered soon, I'm going to start a poll and just have to trust the majority ;-)


If you watch those History Channel documentaries, you will see pators, preists, and theologians (all in suits-and-ties, with stained-glass windows behind them, and bibles in their hands, of course) that say very emphatically, "we're not sure why Cain's sacrifice wasn't accepted."

Oh, dunedanranger, be nice ;-)


Alright, perhaps I do. You seem to know you way around the Bible Eleazar, so I'm going to jump to the story: Abel's sacrifice was "firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof." Cain's was, as you probably know, "fruit of the ground." Abel's sacrifice was accepted, Cain's was not. Skip ahead: were early believers still making blood sacrifices around Noah's day? We might assume that they probably weren't, except for Noah himself. Why would we think that he was? Because God told him, "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female..." And we know of course that Abraham would have been making blood sacrifices as well, because Isaac realized they didn't have the proper animal with them and said "where is the lamb for a burnt offering."

A few generations later, and Moses receives the things in Leviticus, etc.

The only problem I have with the above statement is that we can't be sure that Cain's sacrifice was rejected because it wasn't a blood sacrifice because we don't know that the offering was meant to atone for sins. I have always assumed when reading that passage that Cain just didn't have a giving heart but that if he had, then the sacrifice would have been proper.

I've gotta tell y'all: All you people on this forum are absolutely fantastic. I've posted two questions so far that have really bothered me about Christian theology for quite some time, and in 48 hours they've both been answered to my satisfaction. I never heard such intelligent and well thought out answers in any of the bible studies I've been to. Thank you all.

I'm also still accepting any purely philosophical reasons for the atonement of sins.

Eternally grateful,
Eleazar

I don't want to quote Dunedanranger, but to answer your question regarding the OT sacrifices, I would say yes, that he is saying they were only a 'picture' of what Christ would do by His sacrifice.

Something else to consider is this: In Genesis 22, Abraham was commanded by God to sacrifice Isaac on the altar. On their way up the mountain, Isaac asks his father where they will get the animal to sacrifice. Abraham says to him in verse 8 "And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together."

In the Hebrew, the word himself is a reflexive pronoun, which literally means God HIMSELF would be the sacrifice, which of course is a picture of Christ, 2nd person of the triune Godhead, who is "the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." (John 1:29)

Another point that someone already touched on was Cain & Abel. The reason Cain's sacrifice was rejected was because he wanted to work his way to heaven by offering the fruits of the ground (his labor). Abel only did what commanded by offering the lamb. Cain forgot that God had cursed the ground in Genesis 3:17, and God cannot bless what he has cursed. (Gal 3:10-13)

Something else to consider is this: In Genesis 22, Abraham was commanded by God to sacrifice Isaac on the altar. On their way up the mountain, Isaac asks his father where they will get the animal to sacrifice. Abraham says to him in verse 8 "And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together."

In the Hebrew, the word himself is a reflexive pronoun, which literally means God HIMSELF would be the sacrifice, which of course is a picture of Christ, 2nd person of the triune Godhead, who is "the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." (John 1:29)

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that God in the Genesis verse that you mentioned is saying the *He* would be the sacrifice. You're right in saying that it is a reflexive pronoun, but that only means that God *Himself* would provide the sacrifice, not God would provide *Himself* *as* a sacrifice. In the former statement 'himself' is being used as a reflexive pronoun; in the latter 'himself' is being used as the object of the sentence which gives a different meaning altogether.

Thanks for the input, Sold Out.

So far the score is: Symbolic atonement 1, Real atonement 0.

Thanks,
Eleazar

Thank you so much. I really like your explaination, dunedanranger. So, the first sacrifice did indeed cover the shame and guilt of the first sin -- literally! Fantastic answer! But I have the follow-up question still dangling out there: Are we to view the OT sacrifices (including the new one that you've opened my eyes to) as real atonements for sin or symbols of Christ's atonement? I swear, if this isn't answered soon, I'm going to start a poll and just have to trust the majority ;-)


Thanks, I’m glad it made sense to you! I didn’t notice your follow-up question or I would have answered it, so sorry. So, were the OT sacrifices meant to be a symbol, or did they really negate sin? First of all, I’m not completely sure. Secondly, however, why can’t it do both at the same time? In Exodus 12 (I would very much like if you read the entire chapter later, but I will quote only the verses I deem relevant here) we see that, “the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt saying, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.” The descendants of Israel (which is, btw, another name for Jacob) were in Egypt, being oppressed by the current pharaoh. I’m sure you know how the story goes (please tell me if you don’t, though) about the ten plagues Egypt was stricken with in an attempt to make Pharaoh release the Israelites. Before the tenth and most devastating plague came, they were given the above instructions, along with some others. God then said, “For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

The outcome: God did just what He said He would do; whoever had the blood of the lamb on their doorframes was “passed-over.” Therefore we can say that the OT sacrifices probably were meant to atone for sin. Everyone, even the Israelites there in Egypt, had of course sinned at one time or another, and so was eligible to die- The lambs killed there, though, saved the lives of the people who took part, so we can also say that they atoned for sin.

But are the lambs’ deaths also symbolic?
Move again with me to Matthew chapter 26. Jesus’ very first words in this chapter are, “Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.” Do you honestly think that could be coincidence? Many places in the Bible, Jesus is compared to a lamb, both OT and NT: Isaiah, (If I remember correctly) Jeremiah, and the Gospels. In Revelation, He is even described as being a lamb: “And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.” “These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.”

So do we Christians still keep passover? Yes, but Jesus changed a few things. When He was in the upper-room eating with the disciples, “Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” In this very moment we see Jesus taking the place of the sacrifices.” Remember that the original Passover lamb was eaten as well.

More evidence that the sacrifices atoned for sin: Job’s actions early in the book of Job, “And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them. And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.”

Job made sacrifices on behalf of his children because he feared they may have sinned. This indicates that a sacrifice is needed to atone for sin.


Oh, dunedanranger, be nice ;-)

I know I know… Its just hard to watch- its like your belief system is being misrepresented by the people who are supposed to know the most about it. It might be like having the cartoon Lucky from Lucky Charms cereal hosting a documentary on Ireland…:no:


The only problem I have with the above statement is that we can't be sure that Cain's sacrifice was rejected because it wasn't a blood sacrifice because we don't know that the offering was meant to atone for sins. I have always assumed when reading that passage that Cain just didn't have a giving heart but that if he had, then the sacrifice would have been proper.


OK, I’ll go with that, but I have to point out that we can’t be entirely certain that the animals killed for Adam and Eve were also for sins, or that Noah took extra animals on the arc specifically for sacrifice. Yes, it does take faith to believe; faith is an integral part of Christian belief, there is no getting around that. I think even when we are in heaven, God will leave a few mysteries in the Bible- just to remind us how awesome He is. However, we aren’t “left as orphans,” evidences, links, correlations, and all sorts of tiny jewels are strewn all through the Bible, so that faith becomes something less like “blind acceptance,” and something more like “reasoned conclusion.” So no, we can’t say for certain, but it doesn’t take very much faith to say, “that makes sense.”

It very well could be that Cain’s wasn’t accepted because he didn’t have the right mindset. When I was new to the faith, I had similar sentiments. I thought it was cruel that God wouldn’t accept someone’s best. The fact is, our best isn’t good enough for God, that is part of the reason blood had to be shed. Remember that since God is Holy, He (quite literally) can’t tolerate sin. He even looked away as Jesus took on Himself the sins of the entire world while hanging on the cross. In the OT, though I can’t remember where, God is called a “consuming Fire,” because of the intensity of His Holiness, power, and perhaps even physical attributes. In the OT we read of several “prophet battles” were a Jewish believer and local pagan priests gathered together to tests the abilities of their respective deities. In most cases, “fire from heaven” comes down and burns the believer’s entire sacrifice in a matter of seconds, while the pagans can’t seem to get their’s alight. Simple biblical fact: for sins to be negated, something or someone has to be killed. As Paul says in Romans, “the wages of sin is death…” Abel’s best just happened to be a few lambs, and it was pleasing to God. Or at least that’s my take on it.


I've gotta tell y'all: All you people on this forum are absolutely fantastic. I've posted two questions so far that have really bothered me about Christian theology for quite some time, and in 48 hours they've both been answered to my satisfaction. I never heard such intelligent and well thought out answers in any of the bible studies I've been to. Thank you all.

I'm also still accepting any purely philosophical reasons for the atonement of sins.


Well thank you, and I’m glad I could help answer some of your questions! You, in turn, are hands down the most gracious and courteous non-believer that has asked me about the Bible. I’m not saying that to flatter you, I just want you to know that I (and I’m sure every other Christian here) appreciate it immensely. It is so much easier to talk with a person who, like you, is willing to look at these things hypothetically, and who doesn’t try to play around with words or opinions. I’m new here too, and I am enjoying it very much!

As for purely philosophical reasons… You might try to suggest one yourself, just to get things started- I can’t think of any right now, and I probably never will be able to.

Thanks!
Dunedanranger

The OT sacrifices never LITERALLY took away/atoned for sins. Hebrews 10:11 says, "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: "

The only difference between OT and NT is their view of the cross. OT looked forward and NT looks back. (John 8:56)

Abraham received the gospel (Gal 3:8), just the same as us. He was justified (saved from his sins) by faith (Rom 4:3, Gal 3:6). No where in all scripture does it state that anyone has ever been saved by keeping the OT sacrificial law.

OT sacrifices were simply a proclamation of the Gospel in regards to the coming Messiah - the DEATH, BURIAL & RESURRECTION of Christ (I Cor 15:1-4).

In Exodus 12 (I would very much like if you read the entire chapter later, but I will quote only the verses I deem relevant here) we see that, “the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt saying, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.” The descendants of Israel (which is, btw, another name for Jacob) were in Egypt, being oppressed by the current pharaoh. I’m sure you know how the story goes (please tell me if you don’t, though) about the ten plagues Egypt was stricken with in an attempt to make Pharaoh release the Israelites. Before the tenth and most devastating plague came, they were given the above instructions, along with some others. God then said, “For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.This actually brings up another question, but since it would be a bit off topic, I'll post a new thread in the next few days.


As for purely philosophical reasons… You might try to suggest one yourself, just to get things started- I can’t think of any right now, and I probably never will be able to.Well, that was the whole reason for me to post this thread because even if you begin with some assumptions that are important to Christianity:


(1)God exists and (2)there is an objective moral standard and (3)transgressing His law separates us from His graceYou (read: I) still can't prove that blood atones for the transgression of this standard. If you just begin with the above premises, then you can pretty much prove that any religion or deist philosophy is true. In order to prove that Christianity and *only* Christianity is true, you have to also show that only a blood sacrifice (of a perfect human) will make this atonement. That's why I say that Heb. 9:22 is the foundation of Christianity because it is the only verse in the NT that makes this claim without leaving any room for interpretation.

The reason that I began with the above three premises is that these assumptions don't seem too far fetched for most people to believe. As I've already said, I'm an atheist, but even I don't think that these premises are completely crazy. I think that they are reasonable foundations upon which people can base their belief structure. Many people that I know believe these things intuitively. However, to say that the additional foundational premise of Heb. 9:22 is true takes, in my personal opinion, a giant leap away from intuition.

Dunedanranger's interpretation of Genesis 3:21 answered my question in part (and very well). I wanted to know where the writer of Hebrews was coming from when he made this statement. God set the precedent in Genesis by covering the shame of Adam and Eve with the skins of animals (which presumably had been killed/sacrificed). Now, if you believe that the account in Genesis is literally (or, perhaps, even figuratively) true, then I think you would have good reason to believe Heb. 9:22. The reason that I'm still fishing around for a good philosophical argument for Heb. 9:22 (besides the fact that I can't begin to come up with one) is that to convert someone from strong deism to Christianity, I think Christians really need a reasonable argument that "there can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood."

Thanks for all the feedback.

Eleazar

From my point of view ("on the outside looking bored" ;-), this verse is the foundation of the Christian faith. If it is false, then there is no reason that Jesus needed to shed his blood for our salvation. However, even if I assume that (1)God exists and (2)there is an objective moral standard and (3)transgressing His law separates us from His grace, I still find no reason to believe that Heb. 9:22 is true.

So, my question is: Assuming that the above numbered statements are true, is there any evidence for the claim of Heb. 9:22, or is it just something that's to be taken on faith?

Even though I'm an atheist, I'll accept biblical OT claims in favor of the statement as well as philosophical arguments. I would just like to know how the author of Hebrews might have come to his conclusion.

I'll also understand if it's just something that Christians have to take on faith. We all have foundational beliefs that we just assume are true because they have no proof.

Thanks,
Eleazar

Genesis 4:10, “The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.”

This suggests that there is something to blood. Wouldn’t it have been more anthropomorphically appropriate to say, “Your brother’s body...?” To me, this means that, to God, that blood is the most important expression of Abel’s death.

Genesis 29:14, “Then Laban said to him, "You are my own flesh and blood."”

This suggests that in blood there is a conveyance, at least in the minds of men at that time.

Genesis 37:22, “Don't shed any blood. Throw him into this cistern here in the desert, but don't lay a hand on him.”

This has long been interesting to me. They could have strangled him, no blood loss there. But, the phrase seems to imply that killing is the shedding of blood, regardless of the actual physical fact of it.

Genesis 37:31-32, “Then they got Joseph's robe, slaughtered a goat and dipped the robe in the blood. They took the ornamented robe back to their father and said, "We found this. Examine it to see whether it is your son's robe." “

Interestingly, they weren’t afraid of his blood being shed, but they were afraid of it being shed by their hands.

Genesis 49:10, The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.

Genesis 49:11 He will tether his donkey to a vine, his colt to the choicest branch; he will wash his garments in wine, his robes in the blood of grapes.

Compare these two verses to Matthew 21: 1-3,

As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away."

And too Zechariah 9:9,

Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

The last is unnecessary to the question, but I just liked adding it.

Exodus 25:18, “Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast. The fat of my festival offerings must not be kept until morning.”

It is from these and many more verses that we can see that blood is important in the concepts of the bible. We must understand that God is communicating to all people through the bible, even the ‘primitive’ people of the bible. As well, to all cultures. Some of the terms and concepts used in the bible are foreign to terms and concepts used in our culture, specifically, as they stand (literally). But, they are quite native when we consider matching metaphors.

Christ said, “Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

What was he talking about? Cannibalism? I think not. Christ did not suggest to people the doing of vile things. And to the culture to whom he was immediately speaking, this was a vile thing. Not a forbidden thing, a vile thing.

I believe that Christ was talking about his substance and his spirt. He was talking about the hard stuff that was his walk on the earth, his teachings and his actions, and he was talking about his essence, the force behind the things he did, the wisdom behind his actions.

Hebrews 12:23-24, “You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.”

Thus,

Hebrews 9:22, “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”

In conclusion, the blood is a allegory, it is a metaphor for the spirit. As the blood flows so flows the spirit. Both are, in my view, fluid in nature. The spirit of Christ, of God (the Holy Spirit), flows into those who are saved by the outflowing of the spirit. The blood of Christ into those who are saved by the outflowing of the blood.

This was given to us in such a hard way because we are hard beings. A person asked the old riddle, “Can God make a stone so heavy that he cannot move it.” The answer is, yes, to do so He made the human heart. We are a hard people. Had Christ come here and ‘hung around’ with us, showed us a few tricks, then passed away a wizened old man, what would we have been taught? Nothing I suspect, at least very little, for he would have been just another wizened old man, at work creating nice sayings.

Christ came to the earth to die. His death was a critical event. An innocent man was executed in the most horrific way. As a consequence, almost all of his followers were executed in horrific ways. And, for centuries, those who had learned of Him and believed in Him, were executed in horrific ways. And to this day, people on the earth, in His name, are executed in horrific ways. And the outflowing of their blood, their spirits, serves as testimony to the Divine Sacrifice. Whether right or wrong, if you are willing to die under the hand of another, of no crime of your own, passive and obedient, you believe! That is a fact beyond any other human fact.

Hope that helps,

Goodnight and God bless,

Joel.

From my point of view ("on the outside looking bored" ;-), this verse is the foundation of the Christian faith. If it is false, then there is no reason that Jesus needed to shed his blood for our salvation. However, even if I assume that (1)God exists and (2)there is an objective moral standard and (3)transgressing His law separates us from His grace, I still find no reason to believe that Heb. 9:22 is true.

So, my question is: Assuming that the above numbered statements are true, is there any evidence for the claim of Heb. 9:22, or is it just something that's to be taken on faith?

Even though I'm an atheist, I'll accept biblical OT claims in favor of the statement as well as philosophical arguments. I would just like to know how the author of Hebrews might have come to his conclusion.

I'll also understand if it's just something that Christians have to take on faith. We all have foundational beliefs that we just assume are true because they have no proof.

Thanks,
Eleazar


Yep, it's just faith. You are an athiest by faith too, since you can't prove God does not exist.

The question one is faced with in belief in blood atonement is, Jesus said that flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of heaven. So an explanation would be necessary in that belief.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that God in the Genesis verse that you mentioned is saying the *He* would be the sacrifice. You're right in saying that it is a reflexive pronoun, but that only means that God *Himself* would provide the sacrifice, not God would provide *Himself* *as* a sacrifice. In the former statement 'himself' is being used as a reflexive pronoun; in the latter 'himself' is being used as the object of the sentence which gives a different meaning altogether.

Thanks for the input, Sold Out.

So far the score is: Symbolic atonement 1, Real atonement 0.

Thanks,
Eleazar
Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
Gen 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

God will provide the Lamb, not a ram.

Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Joh 1:36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

Yep, it's just faith. You are an athiest by faith too, since you can't prove God does not exist.

Let's keep it a bit civil, please. First thing, Sold Out: I admitted this in my initial post; there was no need for you to state it again. Second, the only times that I've ever heard Christians bring up this kind of statement, they meant it resentfully, so if you didn't mean any animosity, then I apologize for misreading your post.

This response will be a bit off topic, but I can't phrase it as a question, so I won't post it as another thread. Let me explain what I mean when I say that I am an atheist. Atheists can't agree on a definition themselves, but I'll give you my definition: An atheist doesn't *believe* in God or gods. That's it. Now, if you were to ask me if there was a God, I would reply that I don't know if God exists. If you instead asked if I believed that God exists, I would reply that I didn't believe.

An atheist doesn't say that he is 100% certain that there is no God. He says that he doubts His existence. So, this doubt is the *absence* of faith. However, since I see no proof or good reason that God exists, it is my assumption (or faith) that I should doubt that which I have no good reason to believe in.

Sold Out, by your logic I could say the same thing about you (or anyone for that matter): Since *you* can't prove that God does not exist, then you are an atheist by faith, too. ;-) You see, the lack of a proof that God exists has no bearing on whether anybody is an atheist or a theist. One is a question of existence (objective truth), and the other is a question of belief (subjective opinion).

Just thought I'd clear that up.

Eleazar

Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
Gen 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

God will provide the Lamb, not a ram.

Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Joh 1:36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

Well, calidog, I would say that the first verse is Abraham's response to Isaac. He doesn't know what God is going to do, so he says that God will supply the lamb -- which is what they usually sacrifice. I don't think that what Abraham *says* has any impact on what God *does*.

Although, you bring a good question to my mind with the last verses: Why would John, who we presume doesn't know God's plan to sacrifice His son, refer to Jesus in a way that hints at sacrificial atonement? I'll have to think about this.

Thanks for the input,
Eleazar

The question one is faced with in belief in blood atonement is, Jesus said that flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of heaven. So an explanation would be necessary in that belief.

Is there any possible way that you could expand on your idea without getting all your posts deleted? ;-)

It's good to hear from you again, Teke. I was greatly interested in what you had to say before. Perhaps you could send me a PM, but I'm not really sure how those work, so I can't guarantee a timely response.

Thanks again,
Eleazar

@Joel:

You've given me a lot of verses to look at, so I'll reply to them all when I can get the chance. My first impressions, though, are that you believe that the blood atonement has a greater poetic significance than practical significance. Correct me if I'm wrong.


A person asked the old riddle, “Can God make a stone so heavy that he cannot move it.” The answer is, yes, to do so He made the human heart.Haha, that is an *excellent* quote. I have a very good friend who is getting his PhD in philosophy who I'm sure will get a kick out of that one.


We are a hard people. Had Christ come here and ‘hung around’ with us, showed us a few tricks, then passed away a wizened old man, what would we have been taught? Nothing I suspect, at least very little, for he would have been just another wizened old man, at work creating nice sayings.

Christ came to the earth to die. His death was a critical event. An innocent man was executed in the most horrific way. As a consequence, almost all of his followers were executed in horrific ways. And, for centuries, those who had learned of Him and believed in Him, were executed in horrific ways. And to this day, people on the earth, in His name, are executed in horrific ways. And the outflowing of their blood, their spirits, serves as testimony to the Divine Sacrifice. Whether right or wrong, if you are willing to die under the hand of another, of no crime of your own, passive and obedient, you believe! That is a fact beyond any other human fact.I have a reply to this... well, really it's just another question, but I think it is worthy of It's own thread, since it's a bit off topic. I'll try to post that tonight.
[Edit: Joel, my response to you is in a new thread, "Why the cross? Why not the empty tomb?"]

Thank you so much again, Joel (or the Holy Spirit, if you like). Sometimes, I'm hesitant to ask a question on this forum because I'm afraid that I'll hear the same unsatisfactory answer that I've heard a million times before, but you and many others on this forum provide fresh new ways of looking at my problems and questions. Thank you again to everyone who posts in this forum for all your unique insight.

Eleazar

But I have the follow-up question still dangling out there: Are we to view the OT sacrifices (including the new one that you've opened my eyes to) as real atonements for sin or symbols of Christ's atonement? I swear, if this isn't answered soon, I'm going to start a poll and just have to trust the majority ;-)


Well as has been pointed out, Hebrews 10:1-4, 11 clearly state that the the OT sacrifices were not sufficient to "take away" or cleanse sin (see also Heb 7:18-19, 8:7). However the OT does state that blood is able to atone for sins (Exd 30:20; Lev 16:27). The OT also says that the "life" is in the blood:

Lev 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.

So the 2 priniciples here are that blood atones for sin and provides life.

Under the first (Mosaic) covenant animal sacrifices at best provided a temporary covering for sin. If they could atone or fully cleanse the sinner then of course Christ's sacrifice would have been unneccessary. In reality the sinner wasn't forgiven because of the efficacy of some external ritual (sacrifice), but rather because the offering of a sacrifice to God indicated his inward faith and trust that God would forgive his sins if he followed the way of atonement God had clearly outlined. Hebrews 9:15 says that Christ's sacrifice provided "for the redemption of the transgressions [committed] under the first covenant" and this is what the OT saints understood by faith as was first prophesized in Gen 3, that God would one day send someone to deliver them from their sins & satan.

So getting back to the 2 principles of atonement for sin and life, God has made very clear from the beginning that the "wages" or punishment for sin is death (Gen 2:17). So sin causes death while blood gives life and hence blood is able to cancel out the effects of sin (ie. purchase us back or pay the full wages of sin). But of course not all blood can do this! Definitely not the blood of animals nor the blood sinful humans.

Rev 5:5-9 Then one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals." Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song:
"You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.

Cheers
Leigh

Is there any possible way that you could expand on your idea without getting all your posts deleted? ;-)

I am, albeit in an apophatic way. Meaning if you can't explain what it is, then you address what it isn't.
I haven't seen anyone explain what I asked about, yet.



It's good to hear from you again, Teke. I was greatly interested in what you had to say before. Perhaps you could send me a PM, but I'm not really sure how those work, so I can't guarantee a timely response.

Thanks again,
Eleazar

I'm not the only one who has say. The church fathers, especially the early ones, speak much about Christ and His work. For instance, St Ireneaus, who I've posted on before, in his writings, Against the Heresies, wrote a great deal.

My first impressions, though, are that you believe that the blood atonement has a greater poetic significance than practical significance. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, you’re not exactly right, if I may say. What I mean is that the spirit is difficult to track. To help with this we are given the image of a thing that is easy to track. The blood pours out of the dying man, so does his spirit. The motions are the same. But, that pouring out of the spirit isn’t exclusive to the dying of a person. It is, as well, the motion of a mother’s love for her child. The love pours out so to speak. But the pouring of blood is a very ‘loud’ event, and as such is a perfect example upon which to build an understanding of the spiritual.

A blessed day to you,

Joel.

The question one is faced with in belief in blood atonement is, Jesus said that flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of heaven. So an explanation would be necessary in that belief.

A person is composed of body, soul & spirit. Two of these died in the garden as a result of sin - our physical body (which will face certain death) and our spirit, which has to be reborn (John 3:4,5) in order to go to heaven. Our soul will live forever in either heaven or hell.

So our 'flesh and blood' cannot inherit the kingdom of God, because our flesh will eventually die. We (as Christians) will get new resurrected bodies in heaven, that are not flesh & blood.

A person is composed of body, soul & spirit. Two of these died in the garden as a result of sin - our physical body (which will face certain death) and our spirit, which has to be reborn (John 3:4,5) in order to go to heaven. Our soul will live forever in either heaven or hell.

So our 'flesh and blood' cannot inherit the kingdom of God, because our flesh will eventually die. We (as Christians) will get new resurrected bodies in heaven, that are not flesh & blood.

I suppose that is one way of looking at it, but I disagree.:)

My question was one of many that have to do with the idea of blood atonement.
I don't even agree with the common western understanding of the word "atonement". Even the etymology of the word is western.
And blood represents life in scripture, not any material matter. Scripture speaks of spiritual things.